OK. What order do we go in? I say responding late (as in months and years as Theme has done with Jandar and now Contrarian) go first:

Your pulling quotes from people who haven't been on this thread for seriously long amounts of time confuses things.

I say this as a simple matter of order independent of JFK. Plainly put, if you had brought this issue up while these people were active on the thread, that would be one thing. On the other hand, posting answers to now-inactive people months and years afterwards is disingenuous. You should stop doing that.

As, case in point, what you're suddenly responding to wildly misses the point.

Quote:

Quote:

contrarian wrote:
That Italian Rifle has some impressice ballistics. The Marine Corps taught Oswald to shoot. A downhill "going away" shot is an easy one. Oswald did it alone.

He may have fired some the shots from the front - so what if he did?

Oswald may have fired some shots from the front? Did Scotty just beam him around Dealy Plaza? You're "kind of" missing the point completely.

OK next:

Quote:

Hate to reinforce this childish behavior, but proof of what, may I ask?
And, what do I need to prove?

Let's do this in two parts.

1) Childish behavior

You, Herr Theme, have:

-gone back and paved over half of your commentary on this thread. You, the one talking of cover-ups, clandestine information, and conspiracy, chose to wipe your own records of talking about the topic. The evidence is still there in the "date edited" tags. WHY did you destroy your own writings about JFK? O.O

-attacked me on religious grounds and written about me on other websites.

2) proof of what, may I ask?
And, what do I need to prove?

Your own compadre has said this:

Quote:

If I can prove that someone did not commit a murder, I have no obligation whatsoever to provide proof that someone else was the actual killer.

This is the proof that you have yet to present, and you need to prove it. Then, instead of flinging spaghetti, you would need to examine your own pasta and vet it accordingly. That's as opposed to just flinging it and saying LOOK AT THAT, LOOK AT THAT!

Look at what? You've got whores on highways, men with umbrellas, LBJ, women in babushkas, notes from Posty, Gerald Ford, the KGB, the mafia, Cubans, Ruby and Oswald as lovers, UFO Congressmen, a Hollywood movie, an attorney for Jim Jones, shots from the front, shots from the back, shots from the side, shots from within the car, silly physics arguments, wrong information about pristine bullets, hobos, dictaphone recordings, missing evidence, adulterated film, missing, the Secret Service, the CIA, Hoover, the FBI, and piles of eyewitness testimony that you think must be true.

The official story adds up to nothing. Only the weight of the government keeps it from being a laughing stock , as you are NWM.

Rather than practice your debating skills, as I have said many times, why don't you discuss the case?
.
One of the stories that greatly concerned the Warren Commission was that of Silvia Odio of Dallas, who said that in late September she had been visited by three men, one of whom was introduced as "Leon" Oswald. The three had been looking for her help regarding a letter soliticing funds for JURE, a Cuban exile organization (Mrs. Odio's father was a prominent political prisoner in Cuba, and thus her name was worth something). The visitors represented themselves as "working in the underground," and Oswald's companions used the "war names" Leopoldo and Angelo (or Angel).

The day following the visit Leopoldo phoned Mrs. Odio and discussed Oswald, saying that he was an excellent shot and that Oswald had said that President Kennedy should have been assassinated after the Bay of Pigs. When Kennedy was murdered in Dallas two months later, Silvia fainted upon hearing the news and recognizing Oswald. Her account of what had happened soon reached the FBI and later the Warren Commission. The story was corroborated by her sister Annie, who had briefly seen the visitors.

The Warren Commission, in part because its chronology put Oswald on his way to Mexico City on the dates in question, ultimately dismissed Silvia Odio's story. Just a few days before the publication of the Warren Report, the FBI responded to a Commission request by saying that they had located the three men who had paid the visit - Loran Hall, Lawrence Howard, and William Seymour. But Howard and Seymour disputed the claim, and within days Hall had retracted the story.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations reviewed the entire affair and conducted several witness interviews of its own. In its Final Report, the HSCA criticized the Warren Commission's reasons for dismissing the story, and concluded that "The Committee was inclined to believe Silvia Odio."

Some researchers, most prominently the La Fontaines in their book Oswald Talked, have focused on the account of Lucille Connell, who told authorities that Silvia had told her that "he [Oswald] had made some talks to small groups of Cuban refugees in Dallas," and that Odio personally considered Oswald "brilliant and clever." This strange idea harkens back to Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers' claim that Alpha-66 members held meetings at 3128 (or 3126) Harlendale Street in Dallas.

That story describes G. Ford's editing the report, in his words, for clarity and precision. It also reports that the conspiracy-theory community calls this not an edit but rather "a lie."

*Editing for clarity and precision, however, is not lying. Further, as a member of the commission, it was Ford's prerogative to edit the papers and reports it produced. That is what authors do. People's later studying these authors and their motives in editing, is certainly integral to historical investigation. It is good to bring this up, Bacasper, and discuss it. But why so quick to denounce such editing as "lies?"

Nonsense. When it materially changes the forensic evidence in the murder investigation of the POTUS , or anyone for that matter, it most certainly is.

These are the people you are dealing with folks. Apologists in denial.

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:46 pm Post subject: Newton's First and Second Law of Motion

Nowhere Man wrote:

4) On a further hand, the TSB is just a distraction from the shooting gallery theory, a theory that relies on you for physics.

Analysis: Your physics arguments have been thoroughly rubbished. nPersist with them at your own peril.

"As someone with a background in human neurology, I will admit that muscle spasm may have played a small part in this. Yet, scientists generally adhere to the Occam's Razor principle, in seeking the simplest, most logical explanation of physical phenomena.

According to Newton's Second Law of Motion (and fundamental principles of ballistics), an object with any appreciable density (unlike, say, a melon), when struck by an object (i.e., when force is applied, as in F= ma), assuming the object is not of such appreciable mass as to be able to resist it (such as a bolder) will move, and in the direction opposite of that in which it has been struck (according to the associated vector). I.e., a baseball, struck from the right--with great force--will move to the left.

If we assume that the Zapruder film has any legitimacy (and we have come to recognize problems with it, related to strong evidence of film alteration), we can safely say that such a huge rearward reaction of the president suggests a massive hit from the front. Admittedly, just before this, he "appears" to jump forward slightly, but we now know that a number of frames were excised from the film, apparently to mask the fact that the limo stopped (as witnessed by something like twenty observers on the scene at the time). The jump may reflect a hit from the rear, or--again--may simply reflect film alteration. It may also reflect the limo driver's having just hit the brakes. Try this next time you are in your car: In a safe area, jump on the brakes and watch what happens to your passengers: They will have been pushed rearward against the seats, with the car's acceleration. All at once, they will fly forward for a moment. Incidentally, these moves reflect Newton's FIRST LAW OF MOTION.

The simplest, most logical explanation is that the "killing shot" originated from the front. It is also consistent with what was reported by Parkland Hospital (and, at least SOME Bethesda Naval Hospital) medical personnel: a massive right parieto-occipital exit wound. Anything else is like arguing that a sow's ear is actually a silk-purse. And, as my dad used to say, "You can argue this 'til the cows come home, but this ain't gonna make it so!"

That is my take on the frontal shot as well. Newton's Second Law scientifically makes the case for a frontal kill shot.

If freekin science doesn't do it for you; how about your EYES. ( actually your brain )

NWM and his ilk keep up this speculation simply because the government said so, and that is how it must be. I am part of the "conspiracy crowd" because I am not believing an explanation that is scientifically impossible, not provable ( the SBT) and which just simply goes against available facts ( the Odio incident, the Hosty note, and many others ) which show Oswald was a very complex character and absolutely not a "lone loser "

As the above writer says, you can argue till the cows come home NWM, but it is not going to make the government's case make sense, just because they are the authorities.

OK. n Let's be as chronological as possible so that people can follow.

1)On this same page, you rope-dope back to "Ford lied", where you, in an...um...interesting? moment, take on Gopher, who hasn't posted here for a good 2.5 years.

No paving it over like you've done half the thread; let's stop and pose for a picture of you arguing with people who are not here:

Quote:

Another writer wanna be

Gopher wrote:

Quote:

That story describes G. Ford's editing the report, in his words, for clarity and precision. It also reports that the conspiracy-theory community calls this not an edit but rather "a lie."

Quote:

*Editing for clarity and precision, however, is not lying. Further, as a member of the commission, it was Ford's prerogative to edit the papers and reports it produced. That is what authors do. People's later studying these authors and their motives in editing, is certainly integral to historical investigation. It is good to bring this up, Bacasper, and discuss it. But why so quick to denounce such editing as "lies?

"

Nonsense. When it materially changes the forensic evidence in the murder investigation of the POTUS , or anyone for that matter, it most certainly is.

These are the people you are dealing with folks. Apologists in denial.

And your argument amounts to: wave your hand and talk to the room.

You again get confronted with this:

Quote:

What's missing from the "Ford Lied" argument is:

a) evidence that the wound was moved, period. The base of the neck is still the shoulder.

b) a motive for such a move. It contradicts other WC evidence to move the wound

absent EVIDENCE and a MOTIVE, we still have the spin that:

c) this was well-covered by the media

and
d) Michael Morningstar's opinion, absent of EVIDENCE or MOTIVE, should be accepted as truth.

AND, you decide to move on...to a new piece of pasta that isn't new at all:

your rubbish physics argument

Now, am I being quick to judge by calling it rubbish? No.

Why? Because we've already done it.

It is interesting, though, how the physics argument has changed. Your physics argument, Theme.

The last one involved you quoting Newton's laws to argue that everything went in one direction.

Now, you're using the same laws to argue that they didn't.

Before we even start to look at what you're claiming this time, perhaps it's best to check in with you and try to understand how the laws of physics proved one thing for you a year ago and are now proving something completely different.

In any event, I'll leave you to conveniently ignore that and move on to the latest physics laws:

-apparently, you now acknowledge Rahn's argument about "the twitch". That, by some of your earlier statements about him, makes you something of a heretic, but it is interesting.

SO NOW-----------------------------------------------------------------------

We move to the frontal shot argument.

You've elected to draw that line yourself.

What it, in effect, does is:

-renders insignificant the Love field footage and your whole SS line of argument...unless you think agents were supposed to be riding on the hood of the car

-rubbishes the idea that the CIA, FBI, cubans, mafiosos, or gay lovers were shooting the carcano for Oswald.

-leaves you to rely on the evidence of a frontal shot, which is scant if almost non-existent. A story about a windshield and a guy in front of JFK that was hit by...a boomerang bullet? Nice-uh.

AND, I HATE TO DO THIS BUT------------------------------------------------

We're now trusting people at the hospital.

Doh!

You've invested pages lambasting them and implicating them

but

suddenly, when it's convenient for you, what they say is true....

dag-nabbit!

BUT WAIT! I HAVE AN IDEA-------------------------------------------------

E. Howard Hunt, lifetime CIA agent and better know as a Watergate burglar, before he died revealed to his son, St. John Hunt, his role in the JFK assassination as a "bench warmer." This really leaves little doubt about the agency's involvement.

You wanna come along now and say Jackie O did it Go troll elsewhere. This thread was made, as you well know, to allow for serious discussion of the assassination, not for your throwing cockamamie stuff in the game.

Why not? The House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1977 concluded that there was a conspiracy based upon irrefutable Dictabelt evidence of four shots. Does that make them conspiracy theorists or spaghetti flingers??

Why not? The House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1977 concluded that there was a conspiracy based upon irrefutable Dictabelt evidence of four shots. Does that make them conspiracy theorists or spaghetti flingers??

That makes you, yet again, a liar misrepresenting what we know about the assassination.

This is your "proof"?

No, it's not. The HSCA made no statement that "proves" your cockamamie.

If you don't understand the difference between probable and irrefutable (and you clear any ambiguity about whether you do; you obviously do not), you have absolutely zero business blobbing on about serious discussion.

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:02 pm Post subject: The Actions of the Secret Service Agents in the Limousine

Interesting research as outlined in Mark Lane's new book, " The Last Word - My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK"

Secret Service Agent William R. Greer was driving the presidential limousine.

Sitting to his right was another Secret Service agent, Roy H. Kellerman.

"Kellerman was in charge of the White House detail for the two days that President Kennedy was scheduled to be in Dallas. Kellerman testified," I was in charge of the detail for this trip for President Kennedy for this trip for those two days." However, Kellerman was an emergency fill-in for the Secret Service agent who had made the plans for the visit to Dallas and was in charge of the detail.

Agent Gerald A. Behn, apparently at the last minute, decided to take a vacation and directed the ill-prepared Kellerman to take his place. Behn was not the only absentee that day.

Eleven of the most experienced members of the White House detail had been transferred at their own request to other assignment within sixty days before the assassination, requiring less experienced agents to take their places.

The Warren Commission never explained those anomalous events leading up to November 22, 1963. There are only two references to Behn in the Warren Commission Report. The first is the assertion that he was in charge of the White House detail and had inquired about the "potential sites for the luncheon that was planned for President Kennedy on November 22.

The second is that Kellerman and Hill had "telephoned the head of the White House detail, Gerald A. Behn, to advise him of the assassination."

The commission never discussed what precluded Behn from being present when there had been so many threats to the president regarding that visit or why the most experienced members of the White House detail had been permitted to abandon their posts at the crucial time."

next , how the Warren Commission lied about the actions of the Agents in Dealy...

Any response to my posts that have no relevance to what I have written will be ignored.

For example, if you do not believe that Behn was transferred, prove that to me and site your sources.

Lane sites his sources throughout his book. In the above example, he cites WCR.p.31, which says that Behn asserts he was in charge of the detail. How could he be? He was not there and Kellerman said under oath that he was in charge!

You see the problem here? The Warren Commission is caught in yet another lie. This conflicting sworn testimony proves that.

In my opinion, there is no reason to believe anything contained in the Warren Report, since if they are lying about one thing, they may very well be lying about another.

In just two short pages of Lane's book, I have found at least one verifiable lie. Multiply this times the volumes of documents the government has spewed out on this case and you have a lot of lies.